Tag Digital Trends Video Opinions

End of an Era

When I was a teenager, the crowning achievement of audio enthusiasts was to proudly display their HiFi system to their friends. The living room centerpiece was a HiFi tower, built from what are called separates – units manufactured as 19 inch appliances with a brushed aluminum façade. This was the 70s, and the HiFi tower consisted of an amplifier, radio tuner, tape player, and a turntable that took top position in the penthouse suite. For the baby boomer with higher disposable incomes, the tower may also exhibit a pre-amp, and maybe even an equalizer for good measure. In the 1982 the audio industry added a CD player[1], and the world was introduced to digital sound. Then in 1995 the DVD[2] player joined the portfolio, and digital video moved into the mainstream.

We were proud of our appliances and displayed them as beautiful fixtures in our living rooms. But by the mid-90’s the audio industry began to change. The emergence of the World Wide Web[3] (www) started to affect our entertainment habits. The MP3[4] format, an audio coding format for digital audio, was standardized in 1993 and soon became a tool that disrupted the audio industry. It allowed consumers to save music onto their computers at a fraction of the size, compared to CDs. Then, Peer to Peer[5] (P2P) networking was popularized by the notorious Napster[6] service, launched in 1999 allowing everyone to share their MP3 music libraries – albeit illegally. Music may have turned digital with the CD, but it also morphed from a physical product to a virtual one. When collections moved to hard drives the CD player began to lose its luster. By the end of the 20th century the portable media player[7] using hard drives or flash drives, began to emerge.

It wasn’t just the audio and video input sources that evolved. By the first decade of 2000, the output changed as well. Active speakers began to eat into the market share of passive speakers, lessening the need for an amplifier. Much of this was driven by the computer industry, where speakers would connect directly to the PC. The cornerstone of the HiFi tower was in jeopardy. But the consumer electronics industry seemingly compensated. They continued to improve on the design of the Class D amplifier[8], which was more power efficient, dissipated less heat, and cheaper to produce, than their Class A to C[9] counterparts. They also began to support video inputs. With video, this appliance evolved into the Audio-Visual Receiver[10]. This may have extended the validity of the amplifier, but in the 2000’s the HiFi tower began to lose many of its floors.

The turntable almost disappeared once the CD began to reach critical mass. I trashed mine sometime around 1993. But vinyl[11] has had a resurgence of interest from die-hard fans that are convinced that records sounds better. My take on this passion is that vinyl enthusiasts are accustomed to the fidelitylimitations that the media imposes on audio frequency and resolution. In fact, that ‘warm’ sound that is much loved, can be easily reproduced through digital filters (please, no nasty letters). Tape decks have long become occupants of landfill. I finally threw out mine out around 2005, even though I hadn’t used it for a decade. The graphic equalizer (or, more likely a parametric equalizer) may still be present in recording studios, but is predominantly a software feature in digital audio. In fact, today’s audio quality is so pristine that the consumer ‘want’ for an equalizer has virtually disappeared.

Most consumers can’t tell the difference between a 192kbps and a 320kbps MP3 track at 44.1KHz and 16bit resolution on a stereo channel[12]. Consider that Blu-Ray tracks can support up to 24.5Mbps, 96kHz, 24bit resolution on 7.1 channels. That’s 76 times more information delivered to your ears! The additional surround channels are apparent, but most consumers don’t hear the additional resolution. Regardless, the audio industry can’t stand still – it needs to evolve. As the video industry begins to standardize on 4K[13] UHD technology, audio giants such as DTS[14] and Dolby Laboratories[15] will need to step up their game and improve on their DTS-HD[16] and Dolby TrueHD[17] standards. Possibly Dolby Atmos[18] is the future, which currently supports up to 128 audio tracks and 64 speakers. But how this technology will fit into a home theater set-up remains an open question.

Black Boxes to Virtual Boxes

By 2006, the first Blu-Ray discs were released. It became a new floor in our tower. But many argue that it may be the last, in favor of internet streaming. Online video streaming services have had a negative effect on disc players. Consumers realized that access to a large library at a low monthly cost makes more sense than owning shelves of CDs, DVDs or Blu-Rays. Today’s internet has plenty of bandwidth to support video streaming. As long as subscribers can continue to easily access content through a cloud-based service, then there will be little desire for ownership.

Has the 19″ appliance been replaced by software? The limitation of this audio black-box appliance is certainly apparent in today’s demanding multi-functional world. Today’s consumers expect some combination of Bluetooth, Wireline, WiFi, DLNA[20] connectivity, or Near Field Communication[21] (NFC) in their consumer electronics. For example, a disc player that can’t connect to the Internet has little value to a ‘Net savvy consumer. A console that doesn’t support multi-player gaming via the internet is boring.

Millennial Entertainment

My audio-visual setup is quite unusual. I don’t have a living room in the traditional sense. My computer has evolved as the center of both my work and entertainment world. I sit two feet away when I need to type on the keyboard. Then move ten feet away to watch movies. My office is my living room, and visa-versa. I appreciate that this is not typical for the majority of households, but certainly some level of convergence is happening on a larger scale. TV’s are now Smart[29], and connected to the Internet. Computers, tablets and mobiles are being used to watch entertainment. Gaming consoles are used for social networking. Many consumers don’t realize that their Set-Top-Box[30] (STB) from their cable provider is a PC.

Where does that leave us? For starters, let’s accept that the beautiful HiFi tower, as we once knew it, has virtually disappeared. Millennials don’t even know what they look like. (Case in point: I mentioned to my 12 year old that I was writing a new article where I’ve mentioned him called, “Whatever Happened to the HiFi Tower?”, and the first thing he asked was, “What’s that?”). My tower was dismantled shortly before my kids were born. Even the receiver, once the cornerstone of my HiFi tower was shelved, in favor of active speakers.

Modern living rooms still have their appliances. Somewhere in the house is a WiFi router. The STB may sit beside a gaming console, and maybe a connected Blu-Ray player. A select few will have a media player, or a home theatre PC[31] (HTPC). But each one will have a different shape, size, and color. Nothing in this setup has the elegance of HiFi tower. Even though some manufacturers try to maintain the 19″ form factor, it doesn’t quite have the same ta’da’ enthusiasm from my youth. If a HiFi tower does exist, they are found in high-end home theatres, hidden behind walls, cabinets, or doors. A large number of living rooms need to also check the spouse-acceptance-factor[32] box. Only a privileged few are lucky to have their very own man cave[33].

Thanks for the Memories

Today’s digital society was elegantly summarized by Cory Bergman, from Lost Remote:

“Apps become the channels. Google and Apple
become the gateways, not the MVPDs. Screens become seamless.
DVRs become pointless. And the internet becomes the cable.”[34]

This touches on the sensitive topic of how the entertainment industry has succumbed to applications and the internet.

The excitement of the HiFi tower is now separated by a generation gap. For those that attended high school in the 70’s or 80’s, remember when you bought your first amplifier and the focal point of discussion with your buddies started at the back of the unit? The more connections the amplifier had the more beautiful it was. These days, showing all of your music and movies through the window of our computer monitor doesn’t quite have the same excitement as displaying hundreds of CD’s and DVD’s on a shelf beside a HiFi tower that is taller than a six year old. Such is progress. I may no longer re-live the enthusiasm of showing off my HiFi tower. But I’ll make that trade-off, if it means having my entertainment library accessible with only a few mouse clicks.

• Synopsis

Over the span of two decades entertainment has evolved from a physical to a virtual industry – From a black-box appliance, performing a specific task, to computing devices running applications that serve many functions. What happened to the prestige of the HiFi tower? Did it disappear and we didn’t even notice? This article explores how our world of entertainment has evolved, and what happened to that beautiful HiFi tower.

• About Gabriel Dusil

Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).

I have a confession to make – I’m a high definition snob. I only watch movies in 1080p[1]. I could care less if a movie is available – shudder – in standard definition (SD). As far as I’m concerned, the movie doesn’t exist, until it’s in 1080p (excluding cinema releases, of course). Many friends think that I’m a hopeless geek to impose such ridiculous restrictions on a movie experience. For some colleagues it’s more important to watch the release as quickly as possible, then to worry about quality. Am I narrow minded? Is my quest to have a cinema experience overrated? Who even notices those compression artifacts[2], mosquito noise[3], or frame tearing[4], anyway?

When Blu-Ray first came out I recall friends telling me how they were disappointed by HD video. They couldn’t tell the difference from the DVD version. I anticipate the same response as we transition to Ultra HD[5] (UHD). History is destined to repeat itself as we venture into more pixels and bigger TVs.

Consumers face a perception verses reality battle regarding image quality. It’s all about how we perceive new technology. In other words, the eyes may see better quality, but the brain is not recognizing the higher resolution. I attribute this to any combination of factors. Anything along this supply chain from creation to consumption can adversely affect video quality:

Figure i – The 4K Video Supply Chain

Creation • The cameras used in production may not have been the analogue equivalent of HD. Possibly the lenses were poor quality or old film stock was used.  Maybe the content was filmed with digital cameras that did not have HD sensors.

Source • Maybe the source material wasn’t HD. Even if the content was broadcast on an HD channel, the content itself may have been SD and was unconverted[6] (i.e. up-scaled) to HD.

Digitization • This is where film or video tapes are converted to a digital format. Possibly the source content was not digitized properly from the master film reels. For example, Super 16mm film has the grain resolution to achieve a 1080p analog to digital conversion[7]. A digital conversion service may have used SD (576pPAL or 480pNTSC) conversion on the film stock. • Maybe a copy was digitized and the master (aka. mezzanine file[8]) wasn’t used at all. Once the film is digitized then software is used to correct color, exposure, and audio/video synchronization. In addition, scratches, dust and film damage is digitally removed from each frame. For some Hollywood movies this takes months of effort. Some early Blu-Ray releases received bad reviews because the digital cleaning process resulted in complete removal of film grain – an aspect of movies that gives that venerable cinema feel. The digitization process has since improved to maintain the visual experience intended by the director.

Encoding • The source content may not have been encoded properly, resulting in a substandard video transfer. Typically the analog (film) to digital (file) conversion is uncompressed.Each HD frame scanned to a file would typically occupy 6.2MBytes[9]. Taking these frames and streaming them uncompressed at 23.976 fps (frames per second, typical for a Hollywood movie) would stream at 1.2 Gbps (gigabits per second). This is much too large for consumer devices, so the file needs to be compressed down to a reasonable file size. That’s where H.264[10] and the newer H.265[11] video compression standards come in. These codecs compress an HD movie down to a 4-6Mbps[12] when used in an internet streaming service. That’s a reduction of 200:1!

Transcoding • Once a video has been encoded, then it can be transcoded into other formats or bitrates. If a good quality master wasn’t used in this process, then the result is GIGO (garbage in garbage out). If the video was transcoded several times before it reaches the viewer, then image quality would have degraded at each transcoding step. In the early days of H.264 encoding, engineers were not versed in all the encoding intricacies, which resulted in a sub-optimal video outputs. This same learning curve is beginning again with H.265.

Supply • There are many intermediaries taking content from one provider and handing it over to another. This applies to both broadcast television as well as internet delivery. Hardware, software, and interconnections anywhere along this ‘supply chain’ can compromise the quality of the signal. Over the internet this involves any combination of routers, switches, firewalls, cabling, streaming or caching servers.

Delivery • The delivery mechanism of the Internet, Over the Air[13] (OTA) broadcast, Cable, or Satellite, may have deteriorated the signal due to congestion, latency, dropped packets, interference, or lack of quality of service (QoS) contingencies. Don’t expect the same qualify from a streaming service, compared to Blu-Ray. Streaming services use much lower bitrates when transferring HD quality (typically up to 4Mbps for 720p or 6Mbps for 1080p), whereas Blu-Ray will use well over 16Mbps.

Screen • The consumer may not have a TV that is good enough to see the improved resolution of HD or 4K. TV’s with less than 30” diagonal were too small to showcase HD. Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) were a complete waste of time when showcasing HD. Likewise, it will be hard to see the advantages of 4K video when viewed on screens smaller than 42”, unless the viewer is sitting right in front of the screen. The distance of the viewer from the screen has an effect on video quality. The 2 foot computer experience can afford smaller pixels and screen, compared to TV’s 10 foot TV viewing. As the person sits farther from the screen then pixels begin to blend together, and the advantage of higher pixel densities are lost.

Viewer • Maybe the audience member doesn’t have 20/20 vision?

Bias • This is often overlooked when evaluating something new. There is an inherent bias of each viewer when experiencing something that they have never seen before. Did the person hope for the video to be better, before they saw it for the first time? Were they indifferent? Maybe they were part of a grumpy generation that could care less? Pre-established bias plays a role in how we react to new technology. Understanding these biases in advance helps to filter the opinion of others.

It’s as though all planets need to align before we can enjoy 4K video. This is certainly the case with many technological breakthroughs. Equipment, technologies and processes along the entire supply change needs to be upgraded to ensure an optimal viewing experience.

In the case of 4K, some people will simply not perceive the higher resolution – at least not initially. Even if the technology from source to viewer has the ability to showcase 4K, some won’t immediately see an improvement in quality. When I displayed Blu-ray content for the first time on my monitor, I couldn’t immediately see the benefits. My personal bias was to rant about how amazing the video was to my friends, because I wanted it to be better – but deep inside I was underwhelmed. It took me a few weeks of consistently watching HD before I acclimate to the resolution. As my brain started to adjust to the additional pixels, and sharper picture, it wasn’t until I looked back at standard definition that I realized how my perception had changed.

My 4K video doesn’t actually suck – mainly because I don’t have a 4K TV yet. But I loved what I saw when 4K and UHD was showcased at a number of Media and Entertainment exhibitions these past two years[14]. That may have been my internal bias talking, of course.

Each generation has incrementally higher expectations on new technology. It’s funny to think that maybe my kids will one day say, “Dad, this 4K video sucks. Don’t you have the movie in 8K?”. The grumpy generation would be quick to react, “When I was your age…”. In the meantime, I can’t wait to be a 2160p[15] snob.

• Synopsis

Is perception also reality for 4K video? Will you recognize 4K quality when you see it for the first time? What ultimately effects video quality, and how do we perceive these incremental improvements? This article explores the challenges that the industry faces in delivering 4K UHD video to the masses, and biases that consumers face when experiencing new technology.

• About Gabriel Dusil

Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).

The observations in Part I of this article, “Developing OTT for the Emerging Markets“, outline specific challenges to entertainment providers in developing markets. But the weakness in capital in the emerging markets is somewhat offset by the strength in being able to peer into the future, by observing what the USA is doing today. This helps local players to assess what will come to their market several years from now and essentially creates a leap-frog effect for ambitious companies wanting to adopt the latest OTT solutions. Rather than wait 4+ years to adopt the latest OTT solutions, they can implement a service today, in parallel to their American counterparts.

Figure iii – Average Bandwidth Forecast by Region

Much of the adoption curve across the globe is driven by the behavior of local subscribers, as well as the adoption curve of new technologies in these regions. Here are a few areas where emerging markets differ from developed markets:

In the west, consumers are enticed by the introduction of 4K Ultra High Definition TV. But in developing markets, service providers just want to ensure that their standard definition content (SD @ 528 lines) is served to their consumers in the best quality possible. In some cases, an even lower resolution is offered, such as 288 lines or even 144 lines, requiring limited bandwidth transmissions and mobile devices (Figure iii).

2nd screen and TV everywhere continues to be a hot topic in the west. In many emerging markets the second screen is, in fact, their primary screen. Mobile devices in emerging markets are used as a primary screen for voice, messaging, video, music, content, news, and even banking.

In some emerging markets the penetration of smartphone devices is relatively low. A device such as the iPhone is considered a luxury item. With some markets lacking a well-established middle class, the iPhone becomes the Prada of the mobile market, left to the top percentile of society. In the west, the iPhone is another high-end smartphone, but in developing markets the iPhone helps define one’s identity. This has allowed some of the lower cost Android manufacturers to gain market share.

HTML5[ix] and responsive design[x] may be at the top of the agenda in web design, but the emerging markets’ focus on serving video content to a much wider range of feature phones does not support advanced web features. There are thousands of feature phones that have limited video capabilities. Smartphone penetration is low, although gaining market share rapidly, but there is a concerted effort to support video to a wider range of legacy devices.

In the west, pay TV providers concern themselves with a growing number of cord cutters and cord shavers. In fact, some emerging markets have a large population of cord-nevers, where the market penetration of pay-TV is much lower (Figure iv). For example, the sub-Saharan region has less than 8% market penetration in pay-TV. Even though this market is expected to double by 2020, their market penetration still won’t come close to many developed countries[xi]. It is also possible that if a country misses the adoption curve of pay-TV, then they may prefer to use the Internet as their primary source of entertainment[xii]. This will further limit the penetration of pay-TV subscribers.

The west obsesses about BIG data. Many clients in the west have several years of experience in OTT services, so their focus changes from “We need to make sure the service works”, to “How do we increase our average revenue per user (ARPU)?” Reaching this goal results in focusing on collecting, correlating and analyzing more and more data. Emerging markets, on the other hand, don’t yet have a BIG data frenzy. It’s about basic reporting on what the service provider is selling, who is consuming their content, and which devices are displaying their video. Reporting is seen as providing the basic data needed to measure the success of an OTT service. It’s not yet treated as a complex analytics engine that will generate a higher ARPU[xiii]. Emerging markets are still building their first OTT service, or just investigating its commercial viability. OTT v2.0 features like complex analytics and recommendation engines will come in due course.

Often conversations around entertainment and the Internet lead to, “trading analog dollars with digital pennies”, an analogy popularized by Jeff Zucker, head of NBC Universal[xv]. In the context of this discussion, however, a far closer truth would be broadcast dollars vs. OTT pennies. But in developing markets there are no dollars to be earned since their Average Revenue per User (ARPU) is a fraction of that in the west (Figure iv)[xvi]. On the other hand, OTT pennies can be generated by high subscriber volume since many developing regions have a sizable consumer market. The selling strategy in these regions is less about increasing ARPU and more about generating a subscriber footprint reflecting orders of magnitude higher than can be achieved in the west.Possibly the most challenging issue for emerging markets is the accessibility of premium western content. 90% of American premium content is owned by nine majors in the USA: Disney, Fox, Time Warner, Comcast/NBC Universal, CBS, Viacom, Discovery, Scripps and AMC. These companies spend over 45 billion US$ on this content per year according to Todd Juengerfrom Bernstein Research[xiv]. Service providers in developing markets simply don’t have the capital to purchase these libraries. At best they can afford a tiny fraction of titles for commercial availability to local subscribers. Plan B is to consolidate content from local studios and producers. This focuses their library of titles on entertainment from regional content owners and delivering culturally diverse content that is much more affordable.

As digital video continues to grow at a phenomenal rate, I’m inclined to believe that western companies are more educated about the cultural, political, and economic dynamics of international expansion. For the entertainment community, it may be the case of realizing that earning 100 pennies is far more practical than trying to generate every single dollar.

• Synopsis

In the digital era of the 21st century, ’emerging markets’ have evolved into what we now call ‘developing markets’. If companies in the west are considered the adults of the business world, then developing markets are still at the adolescent stage. A developing market at least acknowledges that the emerging markets have entered their next growth phase. As digital video and entertainment proliferates around the world, the tide is not rising for everyone at the same pace. Developing markets still have to overcome obstacles in adopting streaming solutions due to cultural, technological, and financial challenges. This article has taken a look at some of the differences between developed and developing markets in the adoption of Over the Top solutions (OTT) and digital streaming. By examining some of these, we can help them mature into healthy and robust teenagers.

• About Gabriel Dusil

• Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity Global, and a member of the core management team that successfully secured 7.2m US$ in series “A” funding for the company in 2014. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).

[xii] A similar trend occurred in the payment industry over the years. Markets that introduced a check-based payment system in the 80’s migrated to credit cards in the 90’s and then to debit cards in the 00’s. In the USA, where checks were introduced, that method of payment is still used to this day. But markets in Europe that missed the boat with checks flourished with credit cards. Emerging markets, on the other hand, missed the boat with credit cards and went straight to debit cards. Furthermore, many of the smaller emerging markets still remain a cash-based purchasing society.

Back in 1998, when I worked for Motorola, the company invited staff to join a corporate briefing on the status and future of the company. I was based in Prague at the time, and this was the first call of its type that I had the privilege of attending. There were literally thousands of people on this call, representing countries from around the world. After listening to our corporate executives talk about their vision of the future, one of the senior executives said something that caught my attention. He said (I’m paraphrasing as it’s been a while), “We plan to give special attention to emerging markets. We see a lot of opportunities in these regions and want to capitalize on their rapid growth potential. Specifically, we see states such as Idaho as an emerging market and we want to focus some of our efforts there…”

What? Idaho, an emerging market? Suddenly the reality of my role, working out of the humble Prague office located on the other side of the world, slapped me in the face. Even though I was responsible for marketing across over 25 countries in Central & Eastern Europe, it seemed that we weren’t even on HQ’s geographic radar.

I would like to provide some perspective on what are the true emerging markets in the entertainment industry – specifically in regards to video streaming. Fifteen years have passed since that call, and much of my time has been spent with one leg in western markets and the other in emerging markets. Holding dual citizenship as a Canadian and Slovak, I always felt I had solid footing in both cultures.

Digital video has arrived in a big way and is maturing rapidly across the globe[i]. Figure i shows the accelerated growth of internet traffic, of which approximately 70% will be video by 2016 according to Cisco’s VNI[ii] report. For nearly a decade consumers have enjoyed video streaming on their computers and more recently on their mobile devices. Even though this change occurred quickly, it has also been taken for granted. We expect high quality video streaming; that our Skype calls will work; we even assume that video will be served to our mobile devices. So, here is a quick reminder of what we didn’t have ten years ago:

Consumers were still calling long distance – Skype launched on the 29th of August 2003[iv] and reached its first 10 million concurrent users in 2007[v]

Blu-Ray discs had yet to be introduced, with the first titles being released on the 20th of June 2006[vi]

Even the iPhone began shipping as early as six years ago, on the 29th of June 2007[vii]

These products and services have become so essential to our lives it’s as if we’ve had them forever. But not everyone around the world has been enjoying entertainment at an even pace.

Information Communication Technology (ICT) maturity varies greatly outside of the developed market. The availability and quality of video streaming, communications, and mobility fluctuates depending on a given developing region. For example, the past decade has shown that the USA leads in the adoption of streaming video solutions, including its offspring Over the Top Content (OTT). Several of the first movers in OTT services who entered the market include Brightcove (est. 2004), Ooyala (est. 2007), and Kaltura (est. 2006). In addition, western subscribers consume more digital video than any other region around the work – in excess of 45GB of traffic per month. In fact, according to the latest report from Sandvine[viii], 32% of downstream traffic in the USA in 2013 can be attributed to Netflix alone. But in Europe, Canada and parts of Asia, these second-tier regions trail several years behind the USA in the adoption of OTT and video streaming services (Figure ii). European consumers, for example, consume a third of traffic compared to their American counterparts: 13GB per month. This is partially attributed to the limited supply of OTT services outside the United States.

Figure ii – OTT Evolution – Geographic Distribution

The third tier in this assessment is that of emerging markets. These regions are at least four years behind the USA. This lag is significant on several fronts. First of all, from a competitive perspective, as the Internet is borderless, western companies are entering emerging markets before the local players have the knowledge, time or capital to build a service themselves. Secondly, early adopters from the west have first-move advantage to create an early footprint of global subscribers since they already have a platform and seed capital to expand to international markets. Western competitors wanting to establish a larger subscriber footprint in the east secure additional capital to buy expensive premium content. This footprint is easier to extend over the Internet where borders can be easily crossed. In contrast, broadcasters are typically restricted by geography due to regulation and the limitations of their physical infrastructure.

Stay Tuned for Part II

In the second part of this article we will look into several areas where OTT deployments in the emerging markets differ from developed markets.

• Synopsis

In the digital era of the 21st century, ’emerging markets’ have evolved into what we now call ‘developing markets’. If companies in the west are considered the adults of the business world, then developing markets are still at the adolescent stage. A developing market at least acknowledges that the emerging markets have entered their next growth phase. As digital video and entertainment proliferates around the world, the tide is not rising for everyone at the same pace. Developing markets still have to overcome obstacles in adopting streaming solutions due to cultural, technological, and financial challenges. This article has taken a look at some of the differences between developed and developing markets in the adoption of Over the Top solutions (OTT) and digital streaming. By examining some of these, we can help them mature into healthy and robust teenagers.

• About Gabriel Dusil

• Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity Global, and a member of the core management team that secured 7.2m US$ in series “A” funding for the company in 2014. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).

[xii] A similar trend occurred in the payment industry over the years. Markets that introduced a check-based payment system in the 80’s migrated to credit cards in the 90’s and then to debit cards in the 00’s. In the USA, where checks were introduced, that method of payment is still used to this day. But markets in Europe that missed the boat with checks flourished with credit cards. Emerging markets, on the other hand, missed the boat with credit cards and went straight to debit cards. Furthermore, many of the smaller emerging markets still remain a cash-based purchasing society.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gabriel Dusil and dusil.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.